Financial Times
Thunder, 02 Sep 2005 15:38:23
I don't know if anyone read a rather well put together piece in today's
FT but it might be worth while putting the
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1c4f656e-19bc-11da-804e-00000e2511c8.html link
in the links section
--
^Thunder^
SnowdropExplodes, 02 Sep 2005 15:52:02
--- ^Thunder^ wrote:
> I don't know if anyone read a rather well put
> together piece in today's
> FT but it might be worth while putting the
>
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1c4f656e-19bc-11da-804e-00000e2511c8.html
Crumbs, having followed the link, if the FT are
writing that sort of piece, then we've got a REAL
chance of killing this thing!
The assumption that seems to be made by the media is
that most people find it offensive etc. but if they
are writing such articles it indicates that, contrary
to the position of the consultation paper, most people
while not having any interest in the material
themselves, find it possible to tolerate its existence
so long as they are not confronted by it.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Lothario, 02 Sep 2005 16:12:34
The point being that there should be widely-accepted evidence of harm
before you start banning things, not just assertions about public
concern and abhorrence, however widespread they may be. All the
statements about "sending a message that society won't tolerate it"
underline the point that this is purely gesture politics, not
evidence-based harm reduction.
It's worth noting the opportunity cost of doing this, too. If
resources are going to be diverted from other public services (notably
policing, justice and prison services), a stronger justification than
"we banned it because most people find it distasteful" is needed.
Ironically, without extra resources, this proposed law will mean that
people who have been victims of crime or who are vulnerable to crime
will be ignored while the police and courts spend their time dealing
with the "perpetrators" of victimless crime.
On 9/2/05, -OJT- wrote:
> --- ^Thunder^ wrote:
>
> > I don't know if anyone read a rather well put
> > together piece in today's
> > FT but it might be worth while putting the
> >
> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1c4f656e-19bc-11da-804e-00000e2511c8.html
>
> Crumbs, having followed the link, if the FT are
> writing that sort of piece, then we've got a REAL
> chance of killing this thing!
>
> The assumption that seems to be made by the media is
> that most people find it offensive etc. but if they
> are writing such articles it indicates that, contrary
> to the position of the consultation paper, most people
> while not having any interest in the material
> themselves, find it possible to tolerate its existence
> so long as they are not confronted by it.
>
> Ta,
>
> SnowdropExplodes
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D31
>
Manniq, 02 Sep 2005 17:24:04
Author wrote:
> The point being that there should be widely-accepted evidence of harm
> before you start banning things, not just assertions about public
> concern and abhorrence, however widespread they may be. All the
> statements about "sending a message that society won't tolerate it"
> underline the point that this is purely gesture politics, not
> evidence-based harm reduction.
I think you need to be less cavalier in dismissing this as gesture politics (which is not to say I disagree with you). But it seems to go to the heart of the New Labour approach.
An article in the Independent about two weeks ago, by John Rentoul (who knows the inner workings fairly well) pointed out that this government uses legislation as a way to 'send messages'. This is why a lot of recent legislation makes no sense from a legislative point of view - but plenty of sense from a social engineering point of view.
I think they are making two arguments. First, that there are some images so horrific that they should not be available in society. Which sounds OK for about two seconds, but then falls apart. Its a sort of aesthetic argument - and not a very good one at that.
Second, that if people can see 'this sort of stuff' they might be inclined to copy. Which is truly dangerous and in one sense holds as much danger for those of us into 'extreme roleplay' as into 'violent sexuality'.
After all....there is a whole innocuous sounding fetish around 'sleepy' - which includes immobility, sex with a sleeping partner, drugged sex (play or otherwise). Innocuous sounding...until the government starts to say that it might encourage date rape, etc.
Then there's gun play - bigger in the States....but presumably just as likely to fall foul of this sort of thinking in the long run.
Regards,
M